Meta and Announcements

7 readers

1 users here now

Meta community to discuss anything about the yiffit.net instance.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Wander@yiffit.net

hellothisisdog@yiffit.net

Tagging rules for intersex and ambiguous characters (yiffit.net)

submitted 1 year ago by AwoosWhenClose@yiffit.net to c/meta@yiffit.net

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just to be clear, I don't want us to be super picky about tags - IMO as long as it's understandable, anything is okay. However, Pokémon yiff has a pinned thread talking about this, and I've been PMed asking how to tag something. Basically, even if we don't want to enforce it, it might be useful to have some standard as a guideline.

Many communities reference the tagging rules of the main !yiff community, which includes tags for male and female. However, it does not specify rules for characters that fall outside that spectrum, or whose gender is unknown (due to being obscured, for example). This has resulted in tagging being a bit ad-hoc (e.g. [H], [I], [G], for gynomorphs), and might feel a bit exclusionary for a site that claims to be "queer".

Just as something to propose, how about we update the tagging rules to be something like this (to be similar to e621's gender tags):

[M] For male characters.
[F] For female characters.
[G] For gynomorph (feminine character with a dick but no pussy).
[A] For andromorph (masculine character with a pussy but no dick).
[H] For herm (character with both a pussy and dick).
[U] For Unknown/unclear.

This would also mean retiring pairing codes ("G" for "gay", "S" for straight and so on) in favour of "M/M" and "M/F".

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kitsuneofinari@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I been going through with all of these. Except Hermaphrodite. Since we have a gynomorph community and it puts hermaphrodites under it's label, I simply use gynomorph for both gyno and herms for anything containing either that I post in c/femyiff.

Never used S/G/L/B/T/I/Inc(inclusive has everyone in it). Even though those might be sorta fine to use in cases like an image with 4 or more people in a orgy or a gangbang. So we're not doing what I have been doing where I put M/M/M/M/F/G/M/M/M/A/U to represent everyone in the image. That way it could be labeled as [G Threesome],[T Threesome], [B Orgy], [Inc Orgy], [S Gangbang], [I Gangbang]

[–] AwoosWhenClose@yiffit.net 1 points 1 year ago

I'm still pretty new to the terminology, tbh. I'm just going by e621.net's tagging rules ( https://e621.net/wiki_pages/3294 ). I have no strong opinions one way or the other, if people think the same tag can apply to both, then that's fine by me.

[–] hellothisisdog@yiffit.net 2 points 1 year ago

i like it and it's shorter 👌 ty 💙

[–] Shepderp@yiffit.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unfortunately, client-side keyword filters aren’t community or even server-specific. (Nor do they have context of when a post was made.) They’re a setting that’s global to everywhere. This makes reusing tags extremely problematic, especially when changing to drastically different meanings that are very likely to be on the opposite side of what someone might want to seek out versus avoid seeing.

Consider the following cases: I do not want to see andromorphs or gynomorphs. However, I also really don’t want to risk filtering out gay content and I don’t want to filter ambiguous characters automatically either.

I really don’t want to have to start swinging the block community hammer in order to filter out places that use G or A to mean things I absolutely do not want to see.

I believe quite strongly in promoting common-ground communities and infrastructure based on people being able to filter out what they don’t want to see in a granular way. Inverting tag meanings undermines that to an extent that I think is not justifiable.